But what I actually miss, is a way to address the problem. Because I believe this certain problem is rooted so deeply in the abyss of each and every human mind that it can't be attributet or changed to/by society and will not go away even within the next few fuckzillion years of our evolution.

It is a wide-spread problem but it's nowhere near as ingrained in the human genome as you seem to believe it to be. I live in Germany and, in these parts of it at least, I have seen very little of the kind of harassment I've seen women on the internet talk about. Germany's prevalence in terms of the relative frequency of sexual assault and rape, too, isn't quite as horrific as the USA's. The 'cure' is simple: teach men (and women) from birth that women are not inferior and not something to be expressed ownership of. Catcalling is a power show and a way of showing dominance, it's not exactly rocket science. Remove the underlying need to prove and keep proving one's masculinity to oneself and peers, and you remove the problem.

diagram12345 wrote:

As long as we're on the same page that the "on average, men tend to die more on the job" issue is completely irrelevant to sexual harassment, I have this to say about the former issue -- women are getting more education. More women than men are graduating both high school and college.

Thus, we're able to get the "better," more comfortable desk/office jobs where we're less likely to die on the job. Yes, there are some women who want more dangerous jobs where they're more likely to die during work. But that's not common, and I would argue that many of the men who take those dangerous, grueling physical jobs wouldn't do them if they could get a comfortable desk job with benefits.

So I would bring the conversation around to the difference in graduation rates between men and women -- why is this happening? Why is the school system failing our boys and/or why are boys not learning as well as girls?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the figures I've seen that show women getting more education than usually only show a difference of a few percentage points? That is a) not necessarily a statistically significant distance, and b) something that could potentially be explained by the fact that men have a well-paying alternative to college (and jobs that require a college degree) in the army, an alternative that is nowhere near as available to women. Wouldn't that difference alone go a long way towards explaining that women are getting 'more' education?

After all, college education is a choice, not an obligation. It's a good question why more men than women choose to and succeed in getting a college education, but it's not necessarily something that can be pinned on female-on-male discrimination.

Potential explanations (and these are just postulations, with no research to back it up, but they're possible, right?):

- The military thing, as mentioned above. Plenty of men go into the military and earn money there while almost no women do the same. Logically, more women will find themselves in college that way.
- Due to awareness of sexist bias in workplaces and the world in general, women may feel more under pressure than men to get a degree as a way of securing basic independence and hope to aspire to be anything other than someone's trophy wife.
- Women who *don't* aspire to be anything but trophy wives and mothers (which is a perfectly legitimate choice on a *personal* level, less so if it's a result of lack of options) may still pursue a college education simply to meet men and/or become more attractive to men, especially the kind of prestigious well-paid banker/lawyer/whathaveyou who would be embarrassed to have a wife so far below his "level".

By the way, as this research shows, women are less likely to be supported, funded and promoted in scientific fields with literally all other things being equal. Clearly, even if women are getting more college degrees, they're not necessarily doing a whole lot of good.

It's actually 59.3% female, 40.7% male as of 2010 (private college graduation rates), which to me is huge and indicative of something wrong with our education system. Men do have more opportunities (in dangerous physical jobs) without college, but a few years down the line not only are they sicker than those with desk jobs, they're also making on average $20k less than those who went to college.

It tells you that you are not capable as a human being to tell others what is or isn't impossible.

Because you do not know the future, and more importantly, you have not attempted what you call impossible.

Furthermore, you are not free from moral/political obligations, regardless of whether you are interested in them or not.

It's up to you whether you want you want to believe me of course, I'm just observing and asking questions really.

Even Henri Poincare believed that it was impossible for science to know "everything," since it was like the part encompassing the whole. So no, regardless of who you are and what you believe, you're limited to knowing only a subset of all possible knowledge.

It's actually 59.3% female, 40.7% male as of 2010 (private college graduation rates), which to me is huge and indicative of something wrong with our education system. Men do have more opportunities (in dangerous physical jobs) without college, but a few years down the line not only are they sicker than those with desk jobs, they're also making on average $20k less than those who went to college.

Interestingly, graduation rates for men as a percentage of the total population have stayed relatively stagnant for decades, while women skyrocketed ahead. But men also have lower rates of high school graduation, higher rates of truancy and expulsion, and when we go to college our grades are generally lower. Of course, despite women doing better and more often, they still earn less even at the beginning of their careers, and the cost of not having a degree is higher (the wage gap is greater for women without degrees than those with them). So, there may be greater financial pressure for women to attain degrees, in addition to whatever causes men to just generally have less success at school._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

It tells you that you are not capable as a human being to tell others what is or isn't impossible.

Because you do not know the future, and more importantly, you have not attempted what you call impossible.

Furthermore, you are not free from moral/political obligations, regardless of whether you are interested in them or not.

It's up to you whether you want you want to believe me of course, I'm just observing and asking questions really.

Even Henri Poincare believed that it was impossible for science to know "everything," since it was like the part encompassing the whole. So no, regardless of who you are and what you believe, you're limited to knowing only a subset of all possible knowledge.

It's actually 59.3% female, 40.7% male as of 2010 (private college graduation rates), which to me is huge and indicative of something wrong with our education system. Men do have more opportunities (in dangerous physical jobs) without college, but a few years down the line not only are they sicker than those with desk jobs, they're also making on average $20k less than those who went to college.

Interestingly, graduation rates for men as a percentage of the total population have stayed relatively stagnant for decades, while women skyrocketed ahead. But men also have lower rates of high school graduation, higher rates of truancy and expulsion, and when we go to college our grades are generally lower. Of course, despite women doing better and more often, they still earn less even at the beginning of their careers, and the cost of not having a degree is higher (the wage gap is greater for women without degrees than those with them). So, there may be greater financial pressure for women to attain degrees, in addition to whatever causes men to just generally have less success at school.

Thanks for putting all this down. I was thinking about all those studies reading people's vague "women graduate college more than men" but couldn't be bothered to find them. I'm glad someone could be bothered though.

It tells you that you are not capable as a human being to tell others what is or isn't impossible.

Because you do not know the future, and more importantly, you have not attempted what you call impossible.

Furthermore, you are not free from moral/political obligations, regardless of whether you are interested in them or not.

It's up to you whether you want you want to believe me of course, I'm just observing and asking questions really.

Even Henri Poincare believed that it was impossible for science to know "everything," since it was like the part encompassing the whole. So no, regardless of who you are and what you believe, you're limited to knowing only a subset of all possible knowledge.

Poincare didn't believe in the infinite either.

True. He believed in the "uniformity of nature," if you believe in that that's kind of contradictory to the idea that you can't know everything. If you know the natural laws, then you no longer have to know "everything," you just have apply those laws to everything and nature will unfold like a fractal.

That said, let's take the set of all integers. We might, one day, figure out all the theorems related to integers, but even if we do that, we will never have a machine that will manage to count all the integers, even given infinite memory and infinite time. And this is a very simple space to study, one of the simplest in mathematics. Now if you apply this idea to the natural world, you'll quickly see that knowing all the laws will not lead to a perfect knowledge of all the manifestations of those laws.

It's actually 59.3% female, 40.7% male as of 2010 (private college graduation rates), which to me is huge and indicative of something wrong with our education system. Men do have more opportunities (in dangerous physical jobs) without college, but a few years down the line not only are they sicker than those with desk jobs, they're also making on average $20k less than those who went to college.

Interestingly, graduation rates for men as a percentage of the total population have stayed relatively stagnant for decades, while women skyrocketed ahead. But men also have lower rates of high school graduation, higher rates of truancy and expulsion, and when we go to college our grades are generally lower. Of course, despite women doing better and more often, they still earn less even at the beginning of their careers, and the cost of not having a degree is higher (the wage gap is greater for women without degrees than those with them). So, there may be greater financial pressure for women to attain degrees, in addition to whatever causes men to just generally have less success at school.

Thanks.

The thing about higher truancy and expulsion rates makes me wonder if that might be a possible accidental side effect of women being socially conditioned to be polite and non-aggressive (at least on the surface), while men are generally socially conditioned to express themselves and their dominance through violence and physical aggression.

Much of getting through high school involves keeping your head down and following the rules. It's not all that strange that the gender that's been raised to be subservient might be better at following the rules than the gender that's taught to fight the system and be rebellious.

It tells you that you are not capable as a human being to tell others what is or isn't impossible.

Because you do not know the future, and more importantly, you have not attempted what you call impossible.

Furthermore, you are not free from moral/political obligations, regardless of whether you are interested in them or not.

It's up to you whether you want you want to believe me of course, I'm just observing and asking questions really.

Even Henri Poincare believed that it was impossible for science to know "everything," since it was like the part encompassing the whole. So no, regardless of who you are and what you believe, you're limited to knowing only a subset of all possible knowledge.

Poincare didn't believe in the infinite either.

True. He believed in the "uniformity of nature," if you believe in that that's kind of contradictory to the idea that you can't know everything. If you know the natural laws, then you no longer have to know "everything," you just have apply those laws to everything and nature will unfold like a fractal.

That said, let's take the set of all integers. We might, one day, figure out all the theorems related to integers, but even if we do that, we will never have a machine that will manage to count all the integers, even given infinite memory and infinite time. And this is a very simple space to study, one of the simplest in mathematics. Now if you apply this idea to the natural world, you'll quickly see that knowing all the laws will not lead to a perfect knowledge of all the manifestations of those laws.

Even if you believe you can know only a subset of all knowledge, do you really believe you have no control over which subset to choose from?

You live in a world where you can map the set of all integers to a geometric object, meaning you can see all integers at once as a finite object, and you'll know exactly how they behave under any circumstance.

With enough abstraction, nearly all the secrets of the universe can be revealed.

It's actually 59.3% female, 40.7% male as of 2010 (private college graduation rates), which to me is huge and indicative of something wrong with our education system. Men do have more opportunities (in dangerous physical jobs) without college, but a few years down the line not only are they sicker than those with desk jobs, they're also making on average $20k less than those who went to college.

Interestingly, graduation rates for men as a percentage of the total population have stayed relatively stagnant for decades, while women skyrocketed ahead. But men also have lower rates of high school graduation, higher rates of truancy and expulsion, and when we go to college our grades are generally lower. Of course, despite women doing better and more often, they still earn less even at the beginning of their careers, and the cost of not having a degree is higher (the wage gap is greater for women without degrees than those with them). So, there may be greater financial pressure for women to attain degrees, in addition to whatever causes men to just generally have less success at school.

Thanks.

The thing about higher truancy and expulsion rates makes me wonder if that might be a possible accidental side effect of women being socially conditioned to be polite and non-aggressive (at least on the surface), while men are generally socially conditioned to express themselves and their dominance through violence and physical aggression.

Much of getting through high school involves keeping your head down and following the rules. It's not all that strange that the gender that's been raised to be subservient might be better at following the rules than the gender that's taught to fight the system and be rebellious.

i wonder how consistent that is across different educational systems, though. i am highly interested in the last figure in that article, showing the male-female differences in graduation rates in different countries. Only japan and turkey have male rates higher than female rates; in iceland the slovak republic, it looks like females graduate at more than twice the rate of males. granted, i know nothing of the educational systems in these countries, but i doubt it's exactly like the US system (and i'm sure they let the kids play soccer to win). of course the figure is really biased to western countries - japan is the only asian country, turkey the only thing resembling a middle-eastern country and there are no african countries - but still, quite interesting._________________aka: neverscared!

Even if you believe you can know only a subset of all knowledge, do you really believe you have no control over which subset to choose from?

You live in a world where you can map the set of all integers to a geometric object, meaning you can see all integers at once as a finite object, and you'll know exactly how they behave under any circumstance.

With enough abstraction, nearly all the secrets of the universe can be revealed.

I said nothing about not having control over what subset to choose from, I have no idea where you're getting that.

And yes, I said that the laws of the universe can, theoretically be determined.

I also said that even if the laws of the universe are determined, that doesn't give you total knowledge of all particulars.

If you had the capability to hold enough information in your head, and you knew all the laws of the universe, then you could derive exactly what things would be possible (and everything else would be impossible). But we don't have that kind of computing power, and also this whole conversation is masturbation of the highest order._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman